Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Check Beckham Eligibility

check_beckham_eligibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen Spain's Beckham regime using qualitative gatechecks, returning the rule trace, review level, and canonical MCP resources for follow-up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`move_reason`	Yes	Main reason for relocating to Spain.
`ownership_band`	No	Optional ownership context for director-style cases.
`employment_type`	Yes	Employment structure that will support the move.
`years_since_last_spanish_residency`	Yes	Number of years since the applicant was last a Spanish tax resident.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	High-level Beckham eligibility outcome.
`reasons`	Yes	Positive signals supporting the result.
`summary`	Yes	One-line explanation of the result.
`next_steps`	Yes	Suggested next steps.
`references`	Yes	Secondary Legal Fournier references.
`review_level`	Yes	How much human review is still advisable before treating the result as filing-ready.
`decision_trace`	Yes	Structured trace of the main Beckham screening factors.
`blocking_issues`	Yes	Blocking or weakening issues.
`qualifying_paths`	Yes	Potential qualifying paths.
`key_rules_applied`	Yes	Stable rules applied by the tool.
`related_resource_uris`	Yes	Canonical MCP resources an agent can read next without leaving the server.
`official_legal_sources`	Yes	Official legal sources anchoring the Beckham analysis.
`suggested_follow_up_tools`	Yes	Tool calls that are likely to advance the analysis.
`current_verification_flags`	Yes	Live-verification warnings for fact-sensitive or time-sensitive Beckham points.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context about qualitative gatechecks and the output structure (rule trace, review level, follow-up resources). It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and outputs, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, method, and output hints, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it could briefly mention when to use this tool relative to similar residency/tax tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Screen' with a clear resource ('Spain's Beckham regime') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on eligibility gatechecks and return values (rule trace, review level, canonical MCP resources).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking Beckham eligibility but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like get_residency_path or compare_tax_regimes, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Spain Legal by Legal Fournier tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_paid_call_availability and get_paid_consultation_options overlap somewhat: one reads live availability for the 45-minute call while the other covers broader consultation options including that same call. This minor overlap is manageable given the clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, compare_, create_, explain_, get_, route_, run_) with only minor deviations like the verbose 'create_legal_fournier_contact_request' and the slightly odd 'get_paid_call_availability'. Overall readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

The 11 tools are well-scoped for a Spain legal advisory server, covering eligibility, comparison, process explanation, visa/residency guidance, and client engagement. This is an appropriate size that avoids bloat while providing a complete service.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core domain well: Beckham regime checks, tax comparison, NIE process, visa/residency guidance, and Legal Fournier consultation/contact flows. Missing are transactional tools like booking directly or tracking requests, but the paid consultation options provide endpoints for those actions, so agents can work around gaps.

Resources

Need Help?